Re: POLITICS ZMAG: RON PAUL IS NOT YOUR SAVIOR

[Guest guest]

On 1/6/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> > When Wallace asked him if he thought

> > we should take our marching orders from Al Qaeda, he said he takes his

> > marching orders from the constitution and from international law, both

> > of which prohibit this war (i.e it's a war crime).

> Isn't Ron opposed to international law...?

This is what was actually said:

=============

CW: So Congressman , and I'd like you to take 30 seconds to answer

this, you're basically saying we should take our marching orders from

Al Qaeda, if they want us off the Arabian peninsula, we should leave?

[Laughter from other candidates; applause from audience]

RP: No! I'm saying, I'm saying we should take our marching orders

from our constitution. [applause from audience] We should not go to

war, we should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go

to war when it's an agressive war. This is an agressive invasion.

We've committed the invasion of this war, and it's illegal under

international law. That's where I take my marching orders, not from

any enemy.

[Applause from audience, some boos]

=============

He opposes our membership in international governmental organizations,

but this does not mean he opposes our obligations to treaties. I

think here he is probably referring to international treaty law like

the Geneva Convention. A quick Google search for

" site:lewrockwell.com ron paul geneva convention " seems to indicate

that Ron and his knowledgeable supporters support the GC. For

example:

==============

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul177.html

Indeed, who is to say that the legal ambiguity created by the

Congressional refusal to declare war may not have contributed to the

notion that detainees need not be treated in accordance with the

Geneva Convention, that governs the treatment of prisoners during a

time of war?

==============

Speaking of which, this is pretty funny:

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

> > The Trouble With Forced Integration - Ron

> > http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

>

> This is worthless. It states RP's asserted belief that the civil

> rights act violates property rights, and it alleges (without the least

> attempt at support) that the civil rights act was counterproductive

> and actually worsened race relations. That's it. End of story.

Actually it is the beginning of the story when it comes to civil

rights and more importantly affirmative action which came out of the

civil rights act of 1964, but I will get to that soon enough in a much

more detailed post.

As for being worthless, I don't think so. It was a speech on the house

floor not a written article. Its purpose here was to demonstrate that

thinking people can and do oppose gov't forced integration and aren't

some wackos that just dropped in from Mars, which Gene by virtue of

mentioning that was against the " voting rights act, " completely

out of context (thus using it in a prejudicial manner - and I mean

that in the legal/argumentive sense of the term), was trying to

intimate.

--

" The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the

end, make his way regardless of race. "

- Booker T. Washington (1856–1915)

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> >>> In other words,

> >>> police state domestic policy is being fueled by nation building

> >>> foreign policy. That connection most of all needs to be broken, and

> >>> there isn't one candidate, save Ron , who is openly and

> >>> unashamedly talking about breaking it or even particularly opposed to

> >>> any of the specific issues mentioned above except maybe Kucinich (and

> >>> after his performance in 2004 within his own party regarding the war

> >>> I'm not so sure).

> >>

> >> Please - what are you referring to as regards Kucinich? As far as I know

> he

> >> is pretty 'pure' on the subject.

> >

> > I might be a little harsh on Kucinich here, but he did support Kerry

> > for President. couldn't see his way to vote for Bush after

> > observing what became of his 2000 campaign promise of a " humble

> > foreign policy. "

>

> Oh, come on - that's silly. People way to the left of Kucinich 'supported'

> Kerry as the lesser of two evils - I mean - even I voted for Kerry. That

> really has to be taken in context. I despise Kerry.

>

> And we're really not talking party here - if you're comparing Ron and

> Kucinich, to say that didn't support Bush is really irrelevant -

> Kucinich didn't support him either.

No it isn't irrelevant. I was talking about members of Congress not

people like you and me. Ron couldn't even hold his nose when it

came to Bush because he had betrayed his " humble foreign policy "

promise he made when he ran in 2000. So on principle he refused to

vote for him in 2004.

Kucinich on the other hand not only voted for a hawk, but kept quiet

during the peace demonstrations that occurred during the convention.

And, he also flip-flopped on abortion. Silly, as if somehow becoming

pro-abortion was going to increase his chances of gaining the

nomination.

--

" The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the

end, make his way regardless of race. "

- Booker T. Washington (1856–1915)

[Guest guest]

On Jan 2, 2008 3:21 PM, <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> Ah, again with the heartless libertarian perspective.

Ah, again with the powerful response. As you told Mike Grogan awhile

back when he had a similiar " non " response, okay, you convinced me :-)

Actually, I think your progressivism is quite heartless, because

rhetorically it sounds so good and empirically comes up lacking again

and again as noted in my post below.

> -------------- Original message ----------------------

> From: <slethnobotanist@...>

> > On Dec 25, 2007 4:33 PM, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...>

wrote:

> >

> > > > Eat like we do? Probably not. That may or may not be from a lack of

> > > > economic resources. Economically speaking, yes they would be better

> > > > off. Although as individual groups black people, women, and gays are

> > > > not economically in bad shape. " Poor people " and immigrants will

> > > > depend on who you are looking at and how you are defining poverty.

> > >

> > > ? Well, obviously some poor people are very well off depending on how you

> > > define poverty.

> >

> > Yes there are lots of problems with how the US gov't defines poverty.

> > They do *not* define poverty based on living conditions, which is

> > difficult enough as it is, but rather based on USDA data from 1955 on

> > how a family would survive food wise when under economic stress. That

> > figure is adjusted every year for inflation and simply put, basing

> > poverty statistics on a 53 year old **food** measure is a joke.

> >

> > The income thresholds vary but are based on before tax cash. When

> > adjusted for after tax cash, capital gains, and non-cash transfers the

> > number of poor people drops significantly, approximately 13,000,000 to

> > be exact, or about 40% fewer than the official count.

> >

> > Then there is the problem of the " income gap " between the rich and

> > poor. It always exagerates the wealth of the rich and understates the

> > wealth of the poor. It doesn't account for taxes on the rich and

> > simply ignores the non-cash assets of the poor.

> >

> > The Census Bureau reported that the poor spend $2.24 dollars for every

> > $1 reported, and that does not include non-cash transfers like food

> > stamps, housing vouchers, educational subsidies, etc.

> >

> > It has been estimated that when all the income of the poor is counted,

> > those fitting under the federal definition of poverty is about 1/5 as

> > high as what the government tells us.

> >

> > Then there is the problem of goods and assets. There are approximately

> > 1,000,000 people considered poor by the gov't who own homes worth at

> > least $150,000. Another 200,000 or so own homes worth at least

> > $300,000.

> >

> > There is more but enough.

> >

> > Yes, definitions do matter.

> >

> > > Yeah - I think that there should be federal protections for poor people,

and

> > > other protections for those who are discriminated against. If you really

> > > think that women, blacks, and gays, are NOT discriminated against, well

> > > perhaps you're part of the problem.

> >

> > I think all kind of people are discriminated against all the time, be

> > they black, poor, fat, whathaveyou, for numerous reasons. That is not

> > the question. The question is to what extent is this impacting them in

> > the marketplace. Not very much, really. I can trot out the numbers if

> > you like, but they won't make you very happy.

> >

> > > >>> The fact that some federal government agencies are corrupt, doesn¹t

mean

> > > >> that

> > > >>> society would be better off if the whole system were dismantled.

> > > >

> > > > As far as I know, Dr. is not an anarchist. He is a

> > > > constitutionalist, and the debate is whether constitutionalism is

> > > > better than your " progressivism. "

> > >

> > > I believe that the original constitution had something in it about

returning

> > > slaves who had escaped. I also believe that the constitution should be a

> > > living document....I'm always puzzled by people who are strict

> > > constitutionalists. Scalia is one such, and he's a fascist pig.

> >

> > I'm just as puzzled by people who somehow ignore the amendment process

> > as a method of change.

> >

> > > >> The fact

> > > >> that

> > > >>> some affirmative action programs have been misapplied doesn¹t mean

that

> > > >> the

> > > >>> society would have been better off without them.

> > > >

> > > > Are you actually defending preferences and quotas?

> > >

> > > In some cases - damn right. Of course, you load the language in ways that

> > > are implicitly dishonest. These are loaded words now, but when used in

such

> > > a manner they ignore that if the playing field isn't level, you have to

try

> > > to tilt it somehow.

> >

> > No, you are loading the language. Preferences and quotas remind people

> > what is actually going on under the language of " affirmative action, "

> > (about as loaded a phrase as there is), and thus they shy away from

> > describing baldly what they are actually doing.

> >

> > Generally speaking, the only thing that affirmative action has

> > " affirmed, " is people who really didn't need the help in the first

> > place.

> >

> > > The preference is already there, and the quotas were

> > > there - it required federal action to turn them around.

> >

> > That is pure 100% balderdash. Federal action has retarded the progress

> > of Black Americans as a group. Nor can the feminist movement and

> > affirmative action explain the progress of women as a group especially

> > when women made much greater progress in the earlier part of the 20th

> > century when there was no such thing as (modern) feminism and

> > affirmative action.

> >

> > > Your language is the

> > > language of the racist.

> >

> > LOL! When you can't make an argument you resort to name calling? Talk

> > about LOADED words :-)

> >

> > > >> The fact that the federal

> > > >>> government is not very good ( especially now) at protecting the rights

> > > of

> > > >>> other than corporations and the rich, doesn¹t mean that individual

> > > states

> > > >>> would be any better ­ in fact, I¹d imagine that some would become a

> > > whole

> > > >> lot

> > > >>> worse.

> > > >

> > > > And it just as easy to imagine some would be a whole lot better. The

> > > > difference would be that there would be competition - i.e. anarchy -

> > > > among the states (just as there currently is among the nations), and

> > > > if someone didn't like what was happening in California, they could

> > > > vote with their feet and move to Oregon or New Jersey or whathaveyou.

> > >

> > > LOL. Right. And if some homeless person didn't like how he was being

treated

> > > in Iowa, why he could just take off for New Jersey.

> >

> > Ever been homeless? Here in the state of Washington there are a number

> > of homeless people who are from California. Why? Because the network

> > here is better than Southern California. How do I know this? Besides

> > the fact I was briefly among them, I kept bumping into homeless folks

> > who told me that is exactly why they were in Washington. More places

> > to stay, better food, etc. Pretty interesting network actually. It

> > doesn't take much to work a few days and then catch a bus to another

> > state.

> >

> > > And, of course, if there

> > > were a mass influx of people, the states would probably institute their

own

> > > anti 'immigration' policies, which they'd be free to do, right?

> > >

> > > Your position is heartless and cold, like the views of other libertarians

> > > I've encountered. Why if people just don't like it here on earth, they can

> > > move to Venus. What's stopping them?

> >

> > Just too funny. I'm heartless, or rather my position is heartless,

> > because I think there is a better way to aid the homeless than create

> > another gov't boondoggle that, rhetoric aside, actually harms rather

> > than helps? Okay, and your position is compassionate because you vote

> > for programs that take and spend other people's money and, rhetoric

> > aside, actually harms rather than helps? How interesting.

> >

> > > > Not to mention it strikes me as blatantly obvious that instituting

> > > > change at the local or state level would be much more doable than

> > > > attempting to institute change at the national level.

> > >

> > > Well, in some cases, I'd guess yes, and in some, no...I don't see how that

> > > negates any of the previous.

> >

> > Meaning you would have a better chance of shaping the policy you want

> > at the local level.

[Guest guest]

> Gene,

>

>>>>> In other words,

>>>>> police state domestic policy is being fueled by nation building

>>>>> foreign policy. That connection most of all needs to be broken, and

>>>>> there isn't one candidate, save Ron , who is openly and

>>>>> unashamedly talking about breaking it or even particularly opposed to

>>>>> any of the specific issues mentioned above except maybe Kucinich (and

>>>>> after his performance in 2004 within his own party regarding the war

>>>>> I'm not so sure).

>>>>

>>>> Please - what are you referring to as regards Kucinich? As far as I know

>> he

>>>> is pretty 'pure' on the subject.

>>>

>>> I might be a little harsh on Kucinich here, but he did support Kerry

>>> for President. couldn't see his way to vote for Bush after

>>> observing what became of his 2000 campaign promise of a " humble

>>> foreign policy. "

>>

>> Oh, come on - that's silly. People way to the left of Kucinich 'supported'

>> Kerry as the lesser of two evils - I mean - even I voted for Kerry. That

>> really has to be taken in context. I despise Kerry.

>>

>> And we're really not talking party here - if you're comparing Ron and

>> Kucinich, to say that didn't support Bush is really irrelevant -

>> Kucinich didn't support him either.

>

> No it isn't irrelevant. I was talking about members of Congress not

> people like you and me. Ron couldn't even hold his nose when it

> came to Bush because he had betrayed his " humble foreign policy "

> promise he made when he ran in 2000. So on principle he refused to

> vote for him in 2004.

>

> Kucinich on the other hand not only voted for a hawk, but kept quiet

> during the peace demonstrations that occurred during the convention.

> And, he also flip-flopped on abortion. Silly, as if somehow becoming

> pro-abortion was going to increase his chances of gaining the

> nomination.

>

>

yawn

[Guest guest]

-

> As for being worthless, I don't think so. It was a speech on the house

> floor not a written article. Its purpose here was to demonstrate that

> thinking people can and do oppose gov't forced integration and aren't

> some wackos that just dropped in from Mars

Since you believe Ron is a thinking person, I suppose his stated

opposition strikes you as such a demonstration, but all it actually

contains is an unsupported assertion. I'm not arguing that his speech

was deficient as a speech on the House floor because it didn't provide

any support for his argument (I might make that argument, but it would

be a separate conversation and I certainly wouldn't hold such a speech

to the same standards I'd require of, say, a position paper) but as a

post on this list it failed to serve any purpose other than to

identify Ron 's views. Since it was meant to do something else

entirely, it was a complete failure.

-